groping for optimism

Since my part of the Worst State Ever was covered in a blizzard this morning, I had a chance to go ahead with more comparisons of Michigan to other bubble teams (previous comparisons included Virginia Tech and Butler). Today I’ll look at two teams that ESPN has as a 10 seed, above the “last four in”, and another that is squarely on the bubble, a 12 seed in ESPN’s bracket. Warning: this is long, and a product of me not having to work today.

First comparison: the Gonzaga Bulldogs. Gonzaga is 19-9 and tied for first in the West Coast Conference with St. Mary’s (another bubble team). I chose Gonzaga for a couple reasons: first, unlike St. Mary’s, their schedule strength is at least comparable to Michigan’s; second, they should now be above the last four in by virtue of their in last night at St. Mary’s.

A word on St. Mary’s: with three straight losses in the last 8 days (including RPI #317 San Diego), the Gaels’ resume has taken a big hit; Somehow, Joe Lunardi still has them as a 10 seed, but they are 3-6 against the top 100, with two of their three wins against the #63 and #99 teams. Their lone big win was against St. John’s, which is a huge win, but it was also the first D-I game of the season for both teams. With that record against good teams, and a loss to the #317 team last week, I don’t see how they make the tournament without winning their conference tournament, especially since the loss to Gonzaga last night dropped them ten spots in the RPI. Even if they make the WCC finals and lose to Gonzaga again, they’ll be in the mid-50’s RPI at best, with another loss on their resume. Gonzaga, however, has enough top-100 wins that they should be able to sustain a loss in the conference tournament finals to St. Mary’s.

Here are the wins and losses for each team. The only common opponent is Illinois, who beat both Michigan and Gonzaga, though Michigan’s game was on the road and was much closer. I again listed Gonzaga’s losses next to Michigan’s worst nine losses, which helps to make up for the difference in schedule difficulty.

Wins:

Gonzaga Michigan

RPITeamRPITeam

24 Xavier 36 @ Michigan St.

51 vs. Marquette 43 Harvard

56 @ St. Mary’s 61 Oakland

57 Oklahoma St. 62 @ Penn St.

83 vs. Baylor 62 Penn St.

97 @ Portland 65 @ Clemson

97 Portland 98 Northwestern

107 IUPUI 111 Utah

121 San Francisco 172 @ Iowa

162 Santa Clara 172 Iowa

228 @ Pepperdine 186 Indiana

228 Pepperdine 250 Bowling Green

246 Lafayette 252 Bryant

249 @ Wake Forest 273 Gardner-Webb

278 @ Loyola Marymount 279 N.C. Central

278 Loyola Marymount 317 S.C. Upstate

315 San Diego

318 Eastern Washington

343 Southern

Losses:

Gonzaga Michigan

RPITeamRPITeam

1 Kansas

2 @ Ohio St.

2 Ohio St.

4 San Diego St. 8 Purdue

10 @ Notre Dame 13 @ Wisconsin

28 vs. Kansas St. 13 Wisconsin

32 Memphis 17 vs. Syracuse

38 vs. Illinois 38 @ Illinois

56 St. Mary’s 47 Minnesota

87 @ Washington St. 77 vs UTEP

121 @ San Francisco 98 @ Northwestern

162 @ Santa Clara 186 @ Indiana

What stands out to me after doing this comparison is how equal these two resumes are. Gonzaga has a win against a top 25 team in Xavier, but Michigan has more impressive road wins and better wins near the bottom of the top 100. Gonzaga has three additional wins, but they played four more teams with an RPI above 200. Each have three losses outside the RPI top 50 (none at home). The real difference between these schedules is that Michigan played Kansas once and Ohio State twice, while Gonzaga played Eastern Washington, Southern, and Lafayette. Also, Michigan’s losses were to better teams.

Next comparison: The Alabama Crimson Tide. Alabama has an RPI of 78 (Michigan’s is 66) with a schedule strength of 139 (Michigan’s is 21). They are 11-2 in the absolutely terrible SEC West, and 8-6 out of conference. Bizarrely, ESPN’s Joe Lunardi has them above his last four in as a #10 seed. It’s not just Lunardi, by the way; the Bracket Matrix shows that 36 of 68 brackets have Alabama in the field at the moment. Here is the comparison between Michigan and Alabama, comparing Alabama’s 8 losses to Michigan’s 8 worst:

Wins:

RPITeamRPITeam

16 Kentucky 36 @ Michigan St.

29 @ Tennessee 43 Harvard

73 Mississippi 61 Oakland

105 Arkansas 62 @ Penn St.

116 South Carolina 62 Penn St.

120 Lipscomb 65 @ Clemson

144 @ Mississippi St. 98 Northwestern

144 Mississippi St. 111 Utah

205 @ LSU 172 @ Iowa

205 LSU 172 Iowa

228 Pepperdine 186 Indiana

231 SE Louisiana 250 Bowling Green

255 Troy 252 Bryant

264 South Alabama 273 Gardner-Webb

271 @ Auburn 279 N.C. Central

271 Auburn 317 S.C. Upstate

297 Alabama A&M

309 Florida A&M

328 Toledo

Losses:

RPITeamRPITeam

1 Kansas

2 @ Ohio St.

2 Ohio St.

8 Purdue

8 @ Purdue 13 @ Wisconsin

22 @ Vanderbilt 13 Wisconsin

57 vs. Oklahoma St. 17 vs. Syracuse

99 vs. Seton Hall 38 @ Illinois

105 @ Arkansas 47 Minnesota

119 vs. St. Peter’s 77 vs UTEP

143 @ Providence 98 @ Northwestern

162 vs. Iowa 186 @ Indiana

This just doesn’t make any sense to me. There is simply no good reason to rank Alabama ahead of Michigan. Four losses outside the top 100, another at #99. A loss to Iowa, who Michigan beat twice. This is simply an example of someone overrating one or two “marquee” wins and ignoring the overall resume. The biggest marquee win, by the way, is over a Kentucky team that is 1-6 on the road in the SEC (Kentucky also lost road games to Georgia, Ole Miss, and Arkansas, and only managed to beat S. Carolina). Their biggest out-of-conference win is at home against mighty Lipscomb. This is not a tournament team, and the SEC is not worthy of having six teams make the tournament.

Last comparison: the UAB Blazers. UAB has an RPI of 34 and SOS of 55. They are 19-7 overall, 9-4 in Conference USA. They are 7-6 against the RPI top 100, but 0-5 against the top 50. Lunardi has them as a 12 seed and one of the last four in.

RPITeamRPITeam

58 VCU 36 @ Michigan St.

59 @ Marshall 43 Harvard

59 Marshall 61 Oakland

69 @ UCF 62 @ Penn St.

69 UCF 62 Penn St.

77 UTEP 65 @ Clemson

80 Kent St. 98 Northwestern

105 @ Arkansas 111 Utah

132 @ E. Carolina 172 @ Iowa

147 George Washington 172 Iowa

173 Rice 186 Indiana

201 SMU 250 Bowling Green

221 Middle Tenn. St. 252 Bryant

240 @ Tulane 273 Gardner-Webb

255 @ Troy 279 N.C. Central

264 South Alabama 317 S.C. Upstate

297 Alabama A&M

307 SE Missouri St.

336 Jacksonville St.

Losses:

RPITeamRPITeam

1 Kansas

2 @ Ohio St.

2 Ohio St.

8 Purdue

13 @ Wisconsin

5 @ Duke 13 Wisconsin

32 @ Memphis 17 vs. Syracuse

32 Memphis 38 @ Illinois

39 @ Georgia 47 Minnesota

40 Southern Miss 77 vs UTEP

91 @ Tulsa 98 @ Northwestern

150 @ Arizona St. 186 @ Indiana

The way I have this listed makes it look like this comparison is pretty even, maybe with UAB having a slight advantage. However, I did compare their losses to Michigan’s 7 worst losses, so that distorts things a little. Michigan is 2-9 against the top 50, compared to 0-5 for UAB. Michigan is 5-2 against the RPI 51-100, compared to 7-1 for UAB. The difference in schedule strength makes comparisons difficult, since seven of Michigan’s games are against the top 20, compared to only one for UAB. However, they have about the same number of games against teams ranked 26-100. Against those teams, Michigan is 7-4, and UAB is 7-5, with Michigan having better wins and UAB having better losses when going by RPI. However, the RPI numbers in Conference USA are a little inflated, as #40 Southern Miss is not on the bubble at all, whereas #38 Illinois is fairly safely in the tournament unless they implode in the next two weeks. UAB only has one win over a team anywhere near the tournament (VCU, in Lunardi’s “next four out”). Among Michigan’s wins are the win at MSU (in the tournament), against Harvard (in if they beat Princeton, and currently about a 13 seed), and at Clemson, who is equivalent to VCU in bubble status. Based on better wins, the comparison should go to Michigan.

Again, the point of these comparisons is not to suggest that Michigan belongs in the NCAA field. However, it does show how close Michigan is, not just to a team that is on the bubble, but to a team that may be above the last four in. The bubble is so large and so fluid at this point that two good wins (like beating Minnesota and MSU) or a single not-so-good loss (like BC losing to Miami (YTM)) can move a team up or down 5 to 10 spots in the famed S-curve. We don't need to (and really can't) match the record of the 2008-09 team, we just need a few more good wins. If Michigan wins their last two, a win in the BTT quarterfinals should be enough to get to the NCAA tournament.

Before I start, I just want to thank whoever created the "groping for optimism" tag before I could. After last night's miserable ending, I felt like looking for a reason to be positive.

Anyway, a few days ago I put up a side-by-side comparison of Michigan and Virginia Tech. The Hokies are a team that most bracketologists not only have in the tournament, but many have above the "last four in", and the case can certainly be made that Michigan's resume is stronger.

Today, I thought I'd look at a bubble team that the BTN compared Michigan with last night: the Butler Bulldogs. Butler is 19-9, with a 12-5 record in a fairly competitive Horizon League. Michigan, however, is now 16-12 in D1 play, and 7-9 in the B1G. Here, again, are each team's wins and losses, with common opponents in bold. I did the losses a little differently this time; since Michigan has three more losses, I listed those first and then did the remaining 9 side-by-side. Also, these RPI numbers are from before last night's games. Wisconsin's RPI is probably a little higher, Florida States is a little lower, but it's not a big deal.

Wins:

ButlerMichigan

RPI Team RPI Team

37 @Cleveland St. 36 @ Michigan St.

37 Cleveland St. 41 Harvard

48 vs. Florida St. 61 @ Penn St.

55 Valparaiso 61 Penn St.

81 vs. Washington St. 64 @ Clemson

107 vs. Utah 67 Oakland

112 Wright St. 80 Northwestern

141 Stanford 107 Utah

153 @ Detroit 172 @ Iowa

153 Detroit 172 Iowa

171 @Wisc. Green Bay 181 Indiana

171 Wisc. Green Bay 250 Bowling Green

183 Ball State 255 Bryant

202 @ Siena 263 Gardner-Webb

212 @ Loyola (Ill.) 280 N.C. Central

233 Miss. Valley St. 319 S.C. Upstate

273 Youngstown St.

290 @ Illinois-Chicago

290 Illinois-Chicago

Losses:

ButlerMichigan

RPI Team RPI Team

1 Kansas

4 @ Ohio St.

4 Ohio St.

6 vs. Duke 9 Purdue

23 @ Louisville 19 @ Wisconsin

24 @ Xavier 19 Wisconsin (guh)

55 @ Valparaiso 22 vs. Syracuse

108 @ Wisc.-Milwaukee 39 Minnesota

108 Wisc.-Milwaukee 41 @ Illinois

112 @ Wright St. 51 vs. UTEP

133 Evansville 76 @ Northwestern

273 @ Youngstown St. 178 @ Indiana

The quality of top wins is about the same. Butler's top five wins are roughly equivalent to Michigan's top five. While the RPI numbers average one spot better for Butler, Michigan has three road wins in that group to Butler's one road win and two neutral-site wins. Michigan's next three wins are all significantly better than Butler's. Where Butler cleans up in this comparison is in their wins against teams with an RPI over 150. Their wins against terrible teams are against less terrible teams than the ones Michigan played. Apparently bracketologists find this to be important.

As for the losses, there is truly no comparison. Even comparing Butler's 9 losses to Michigan's worst 9 losses, Michigan wins the comparison by a wide margin. Purdue and the two Wisconsin losses are roughly the same as Butler's top three losses, but Butler's five losses outside the top 100 stand out like a sore hand. Youngstown State? Really?

The way I look at this is that Michigan has better wins against the top 150, and Butler has better wins against the bottom 150. Michigan has lost to far better teams, a result of their much more difficult schedule. Against all teams ranked outside the top 25, Butler is 19-6, while Michigan is 16-5. Both have about the same winning percentage in that regard, but Michigan's losses were to much more difficult competition.

Let's look at it a different way, the way that the bracketologists do:

RPI: Michigan is #58, Butler is #47.

SOS: Michigan is #25, Butler is #74.

Record against the top 100: Butler is 5-4, Michigan is 7-11.

When you look at it in this simplistic a form, you can understand why Butler frequently gets put into the field (also, last year's tournament) and Michigan doesn't sniff the bubble. However, a closer look shows the comparison is far closer. It also shows that wins in the last two games might not be enough. Unfortunately, what gets left out in this view is:

Against teams 100-200: Butler is 8-4, Michigan is 4-1.

Against teams with RPI>200: Butler is 6-1, Michigan is 5-0.

If Michigan, rather than playing Kansas, OSU twice, and Purdue, had lost to IUPUI (RPI #102) four times, both teams would have 5 bad losses, but Michigan would now be 7-6 against the top 100, and the resumes would look the same, except Michigan's losses would be to better teams.

If Michigan beats Minnesota on Saturday, I'll continue this series of comparisons with a look at Gonzaga. If not, it will be time to focus fully on hockey.

Someone called me one of the most depressing users on this board on the other thread, so maybe some of you will think this is coming from an unlikely source. But yeah, I can get down with optimism, here it goes:

1. Denard might be Percy Harvin with an arm!

There are so many reasons to be optimistic about Denard that I feel like I could do a top 5 list just about that, but I won't. As good as Tate was last year, Denard has the tools to take this offense from good to mindblowingly awesome. Last year, Denard was extremely limited in what he was allowed to run. Mostly the coaches just had him run straight at the line, or roll out to hit bubble screens. There was no deception in how he was deployed. Denard wasn't even allowed to run the zone read, this offense's base play and a play call that, at least physically, plays to his strengths.

Fortunately Denard seems to have made progress at a breakneck pace. In the spring game (insert caveat here) wasn't just running the zone read, he was completing passes over the middle and sometimes even sitting in the pocket and letting the play develop. Whereas last year every throw of his seemed to fly out at 100 mph, in the spring game he showed a fair amount of touch on the ball. If Denard can be half as poised throwing in the season as he was in the spring game, this offense will open up and hit on all cylinders. Denard and co will dance around the opposition and light up the scoreboard like we've never seen at Michigan. Even better, if he continues to improve at this pace, in a few years we'll be comparing him favorably to Pat White.

2. Improved O line play!

All we lost were an adequate tackle and an adequate guard. We've got an extremely talented pool of youngsters fighting for their spots, led by Taylor Lewan and Patrick Omameh, both of whom have the potential to be four year starters. Others will push returning starters. Everyone has had an extra year to improve and this should be a very good and very deep group.

3. GERG is coaching all linebackers!

3 cheers for Jay Hopson being gone! Obi Ezeh and Jonas Mouton might be this year's Stevie Brown(s). All three were starters since at least their sophomore years who showed tremendous physical skills, but seemed unable to put it together mentally. For Brown, this was until his senior year, when he switched to an outside linebacker (kind of nickel corner) role from his safety position. GERG proceeded to turn him from mgowhippingboy to easily our best linebacker and an NFL draft pick. If Mouton and Ezeh make half the improvement Brown did our linebacking play will have gone from bad to fairly decent.

4. Molk is back!

David Molk proved his worth with his absence last year. When he got injured the offense took a major step back which they never recovered from. Hopefully with improved depth, any injuries will be weathered better this year, but Molk is good enough and important enough to this offense that his return should provide a shot of life either way.

5. (Relative) Continuity on defense!

So we're kind of switching to a 3-3-5, but at least we have the same coordinator for the first time since '07. That continuity extends at least to the coordinator's personal familiarity with the players and vice versa and that's gotta be worth something even if the scheme has changed amirite?

Bonus: 6. Turnovers!

We've had one of the worst turnover margins in the country in each of the last two years. If turnovers are as random as I'd like to think (and a lot of research shows) that has to change sooner or later.